Westminster who lack any gravitas with their vulgar and crass loud-mouthed Brexit are likely to inevitably be routed completely from the European Union.

Their increasingly overt absence of any respect whatsoever for the EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms is ultimately irreconcilable with the European Union.

... it's rather nice listening to the different languages which reminds one of what it really is to be part of the european union...

Brexit is far, far more serious than Westminster are saying with all their guffawing to Murdoch cameras, because Westminster are threatening even the ability of companies in the UK to do substantive trade deals afterwards with Westminster's unwarranted opposition to the ECJ.

There's no 'good faith' with a country whose starting point is it refuses to recognize the rule of law.

The cesspit of Brexit Westminster:

... the lying murdoch city of london mouth opened at the european union parliament and all it cared about was money, not british nationals or any other civilians in the european union...

Westminster have brought new meaning to a 'margin of appreciation' a country could enjoy under the Human Rights Act by using it to cynically ignore human rights entirely for as long as possible.

The UK is a country where real peaceniks have long not even enjoyed the basics of legal representation or trial before being illegally imprisoned while Westminster politicians and journalists smiled to camera pretending everything was hunky-dory.

The completely out of control opinion mill of Westminster war mongers politics and propaganda could not continue down their lawless road in the European Union, endlessly dictating to anyone and everyone else everywhere.

Verhofstadt looked more than foolish admitting the UK entered the European Union as the sick man of Europe, and proceeded to abuse the European Union to try and re-live their glory days of colonialism, disingenuously likening that to being a staunch defender of civil liberties !!

It's somewhat uphill to try and spin Brexit Westminster as anything other than a complete rejection of the rule of law.

If politicians only got paid according to what they could prove when they opened their mouths, there would be far fewer politicians and many more civilian lives saved.

It is Westminster war mongers completely out of control politics and journalism who pushed the Iraq War on to the European Union and Middle East with it’s accompanying War on Terror and refugee crisis.

And still Westminster try and lecture everyone over their desire to smash the European Union !! because that is all the bellicose Brexit with it’s echo chambers in Washington and Moscow are really left saying.

Their mouths only open to talk about money for themselves while they show complete and utter disrespect for all civilians across the European Union including their own.

It says everything anyone needs to know when fascist Westminster want to trade away their own British nationals in the European Union because Westminster do not want to abide by the EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

Westminster are clearly acting purely out of self-interest, not national interest.

This is all the more outrageous in a Europe that has seen Two World Wars really waged across it’s continent that slaughtered millions upon millions of innocent civilians based on the reckless language of such self-serving politicians and their propagandists.

– having regard to Articles 3(5), 4(3) and 8 of the Treaty on European Union,

– having regard to Articles 217 and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the notification given by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the European Council on 29 March 2017 in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

– having regard to its resolution of 28 June 2016 on the decision to leave the EU resulting from the UK referendum(1),

– having regard to its resolutions of 16 February 2017 on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union(2), on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty(3), and on budgetary capacity for the euro area(4),

– having regard to Rule 123(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the notification by the United Kingdom Government to the European Council begins the process by which the United Kingdom will cease to be a Member State of the European Union and the Treaties will no longer apply to it;

B. whereas this will be an unprecedented and regrettable event as a Member State has never withdrawn from the European Union before; whereas that withdrawal must be arranged in an orderly fashion so as not to negatively affect the European Union, its citizens and the process of European integration;

C. whereas the European Parliament represents [it is untrue that as a matter of law politicians have legal standing over individual civilians who have not surrendered their freedoms to politicians in a number of ways. The politicians are representing politicians and those who want to be represented by them. ie: the Faragarama is 'not in my name'.] all citizens of the European Union and will act throughout the whole process leading to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom to protect their interests;

D. whereas although it is the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union, it is the duty of all remaining Member States to act in unity in the defence of the European Union’s interests and its integrity; whereas, therefore, the negotiations will be conducted between the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and the Commission on behalf of the European Union and its remaining 27 Member States (EU-27), on the other;

E. whereas negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union will begin following adoption by the European Council of guidelines for those negotiations; whereas this resolution represents the European Parliament’s position for those guidelines and will also form the basis of Parliament’s assessment of the negotiation process and of any agreement reached between the European Union and the United Kingdom;

F. whereas until it leaves the European Union the United Kingdom must enjoy all the rights and fulfil all the obligations deriving from the Treaties, including the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union;

G. whereas the United Kingdom has stated in its notification of 29 March 2017 its intention to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

H. whereas the United Kingdom Government has indicated in the same notification that its future relationship with the European Union will not include membership of the internal market or membership of the customs union;

I. whereas, nevertheless, continued membership of the United Kingdom of the internal market, the European Economic Area and/or the customs union would have been the optimal solution for both the United Kingdom and the EU-27; whereas this is not possible as long as the United Kingdom Government maintains its objections to the four freedoms and to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, refuses to make a general contribution to the Union budget, and wants to conduct its own trade policy;

J. whereas, following the result of the referendum on leaving the European Union, the decision ‘concerning a new settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union’ annexed to the European Council conclusions of 18 and 19 February 2016 is in any case null and void in all its provisions;

K. whereas the negotiations must be conducted with the aims of providing legal stability and minimising disruption, and providing a clear vision of the future for citizens and legal entities;

L. whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27, so that it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership;

M. whereas without a withdrawal agreement the United Kingdom would automatically exit the European Union on 30 March 2019, and would do so in a disorderly manner;

N. whereas a large number of United Kingdom citizens, including a majority in Northern Ireland and Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union;

O. whereas the European Parliament is especially concerned at the consequences of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union for Northern Ireland and its future relations with Ireland; whereas in that respect it is crucial to safeguard peace and therefore to preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, recalling that it was brokered with the active participation of the Union, as the European Parliament emphasised in its resolution of 13 November 2014 on the Northern Ireland peace process(5);

P. whereas the withdrawal of the United Kingdom should compel the EU-27 and the Union institutions to better address the current challenges and to reflect on their future and on their efforts to make the European project more effective, more democratic, and closer to the citizens; recalls the Bratislava roadmap, the resolutions of the European Parliament on the matter, the European Commission’s White Paper of 1 March 2017 on the Future of Europe, the Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017, and the proposals of the High-Level Group on Own Resources of 17 January 2017, which may serve as a basis for this reflection;

1. Acknowledges the notification by the United Kingdom Government to the European Council which formalises the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the European Union;

2. Calls for the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, as provided for in Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, to begin as soon as possible;

3. Reiterates the importance of the withdrawal agreement and any possible transitional arrangement(s) entering into force well before the elections to the European Parliament of May 2019;

4. Recalls that the withdrawal agreement can only be concluded with the consent of the European Parliament, as is also the case for any possible future agreement on relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom as well as any possible transitional arrangements;

General principles for the negotiations

5. Expects that, to ensure an orderly exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom must be conducted in good faith and full transparency; recalls that the United Kingdom will continue to enjoy its rights as a Member State of the European Union until the withdrawal agreement comes into force and will therefore also remain bound by its duties and commitments arising therefrom;

6. Recalls that, in this respect, it would be contrary to Union law for the United Kingdom to begin, in advance of its withdrawal, negotiations on possible trade agreements with third countries; stresses that such an action would be in contradiction with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and should have consequences, among them the United Kingdom’s exclusion from the procedures for trade negotiations laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; emphasises that the same must apply in other policy areas where the United Kingdom would continue to shape Union legislation, actions, strategies or common policies in a way that favours its own interests as a departing Member State, rather than the interests of the European Union and of the EU-27;

7. Warns that any bilateral arrangement between one or several remaining Member States and the United Kingdom, in the areas of European Union competence, that has not been agreed by the EU-27, relating to issues included in the scope of the withdrawal agreement and/or impinging on the future relationship of the European Union with the United Kingdom, would also be in contradiction with the Treaties; warns moreover that this would especially be the case for any bilateral agreement and/or regulatory or supervisory practice that would relate, for instance, to any privileged access to the internal market for United Kingdom-based financial institutions at the expense of the Union’s regulatory framework or to the status of EU-27 citizens in the United Kingdom or vice versa;

8. Believes that the mandate and the negotiating directives applying throughout the whole negotiation process must fully reflect the positions and interests of the citizens of the EU-27, including those of Ireland, since that Member State will be particularly affected by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union;

9. Hopes that under these conditions the European Union and the United Kingdom will establish a future relationship that is fair, as close as possible and balanced in terms of rights and obligations; regrets the decision by the United Kingdom Government not to participate in the internal market, the European Economic Area or the customs union; considers that a state withdrawing from the Union cannot enjoy similar benefits to those enjoyed by a Union Member State, and therefore announces that it will not consent to any agreement that would contradict this;

10. Reaffirms that membership of the internal market and the customs union entails acceptance of the four freedoms, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, general budgetary contributions and adherence to the European Union’s common commercial policy;

11. Stresses that the United Kingdom must honour all its legal, financial and budgetary obligations, including commitments under the current multiannual financial framework, falling due up to and after the date of its withdrawal;

12. Notes the proposed arrangements for the organisation of negotiations set out in the statement by the Heads of State or Government of 27 Member States, as well as the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, of 15 December 2016; welcomes the nomination of the European Commission as Union negotiator and the Commission’s nomination of Michel Barnier as its chief negotiator; points out that full involvement of the European Parliament is a necessary precondition for it to give its consent to any agreement reached between the European Union and the United Kingdom;

Sequencing of the negotiations

13. Underlines that, in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the negotiations are to concern the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal while taking account of the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;

14. Agrees that should substantial progress be made towards a withdrawal agreement then talks could start on possible transitional arrangements on the basis of the intended framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;

15. Notes that an agreement on a future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom as a third country can only be concluded once the United Kingdom has withdrawn from the European Union;

Withdrawal agreement

16. States that the withdrawal agreement must be in conformity with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, failing which it will not obtain the consent of the European Parliament;

17. Is of the opinion that the withdrawal agreement should address the following elements:

• the legal status of EU-27 citizens living or having lived in the United Kingdom and of United Kingdom citizens living or having lived in other Member States, as well as other provisions concerning their rights;

• the settlement of financial obligations between the United Kingdom and the European Union;

• the European Union’s external border;

• the clarification of the status of the United Kingdom’s international commitments undertaken as a Member State of the European Union, given that the European Union of 27 Member States will be the legal successor to the European Union of 28 Member States;

• legal certainty for legal entities, including companies;

• the designation of the Court of Justice of the European Union as the competent authority for the interpretation and enforcement of the withdrawal agreement;

18. Requires the fair treatment of EU-27 citizens living or having lived in the United Kingdom and of United Kingdom citizens living or having lived in the EU-27 and is of the opinion that their respective rights and interests must be given full priority in the negotiations; demands, therefore, that the status and rights of EU-27 citizens residing in the United Kingdom and of United Kingdom citizens residing in the EU-27 be subject to the principles of reciprocity, equity, symmetry and non-discrimination, and demands moreover the protection of the integrity of Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its enforcement framework; stresses that any degradation of the rights linked to freedom of movement, including discrimination between EU citizens in their access to residency rights, before the date of withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom would be contrary to Union law;

19. Stresses that a single financial settlement with the United Kingdom on the basis of the European Union’s annual accounts as audited by the European Court of Auditors must include all its legal liabilities arising from outstanding commitments as well as making provision for off-balance sheet items, contingent liabilities and other financial costs arising directly as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal;

20. Recognises that the unique position of and the special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland must be addressed in the withdrawal agreement; urges that all means and measures consistent with European Union law and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement be used to mitigate the effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; insists in that context on the absolute need to ensure continuity and stability of the Northern Ireland peace process and to do everything possible to avoid a hardening of the border;

Future European Union-United Kingdom relationship

21. Acknowledges the notification of 29 March 2017 and the White Paper of the United Kingdom Government of 2 February 2017 on ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union’;

22. Believes that the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom should be balanced and comprehensive and should serve the interests of the citizens of both parties, and will therefore need sufficient time to be negotiated; stresses that it should cover areas of common interest while respecting the integrity of the European Union’s legal order and the fundamental principles and values of the Union, including the integrity of the internal market as well as the decision-making capacity and autonomy of the Union; notes that Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, as well as Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides for ‘establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedures’, could provide an appropriate framework for such a future relationship;

23. States that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations on the future European Union-United Kingdom relationship, they cannot involve any trade-off between internal and external security including defence cooperation, on the one hand, and the future economic relationship, on the other hand;

24. Stresses that any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom is conditional on the United Kingdom’s continued adherence to the standards provided by international obligations, including human rights, and the Union’s legislation and policies, in, among others, the fields of the environment, climate change, the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition, trade and social rights, especially safeguards against social dumping;

25. Opposes any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom that would contain piecemeal or sectorial provisions, including with respect to financial services, providing United Kingdom-based undertakings with preferential access to the internal market and/or the customs union; underlines that after its withdrawal the United Kingdom will fall under the third-country regime provided for in Union legislation;

26. Notes that if the United Kingdom asks to participate in certain European Union programmes it will be as a third country, entailing appropriate budgetary contributions and oversight by the existing jurisdiction; would welcome, in this context, the United Kingdom’s continued participation in a number of programmes, such as Erasmus;

27. Takes note that many citizens of the United Kingdom have expressed strong opposition to losing the rights they currently enjoy pursuant to Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; proposes that the EU-27 examine how to mitigate this within the limits of Union primary law whilst fully respecting the principles of reciprocity, equity, symmetry and non-discrimination;

Transitional arrangements

28. Believes that transitional arrangements ensuring legal certainty and continuity can only be agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom if they contain the right balance of rights and obligations for both parties and preserve the integrity of the European Union’s legal order, with the Court of Justice of the European Union responsible for settling any legal challenges; believes, moreover, that any such arrangements must also be strictly limited both in time – not exceeding three years – and in scope, as they can never be a substitute for European Union membership;

Issues for the EU-27 and the Union institutions

29. Calls for agreement to be reached as quickly as possible on the relocation of the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency and for the process of relocation to begin as soon as practicable;

30. Points out that a review and adjustment of Union law may be necessary to take account of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal;

31. Believes that a revision covering the last two years of the current multiannual financial framework is not required, but that the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal should be dealt with by means of the annual budgetary procedure; underlines that the work on a new multiannual financial framework, including the question of own resources, should begin immediately among the Union institutions and the EU-27;

32. Commits itself to finalising in time the legislative procedures on the composition of the European Parliament under Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union and on the electoral procedure on the basis of its proposal under Article 223 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union annexed to its resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union(6); believes furthermore, taking into account Recital P of the present resolution, that during the negotiations on the withdrawal of, and on the establishing of a new relationship with, the United Kingdom, the remaining 27 Member States of the European Union, together with its institutions, need to strengthen the present Union by means of a broad public debate and to start an in-depth interinstitutional reflection on its future;

Final provisions

33. Reserves the right to clarify its position on the European Union-United Kingdom negotiations, and, where appropriate, to adopt further resolutions, including on specific matters or sectorial issues, in the light of the progress or otherwise of those negotiations;

34. Expects the European Council to take this resolution into account when adopting its guidelines defining the framework for negotiations and setting out the overall positions and principles that the European Union will pursue;

35. Resolves to determine its final position on the agreement(s) based on the assessment made in line with the content of this resolution and any subsequent European Parliament resolutions;

36. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the national parliaments and the Government of the United Kingdom.

The same Brexit Little Englanders today were Hitlers’ biggest fans because... they installed him in the merry go-round between the inbred European ‘royalty’ like the re-branded unelected 'Windsors' and their political spin-offs.

The War on Terror has seen the UN Security Council lose any shred of credibility with the U.S. and U.K. military certainly not welcome among civilians in the continental European Union.

All the European Union would really need to do to free themselves from the shackles of Westminster, Washington and Moscow’s divide and rule built around the unelected global ‘off-shore’ banking empire is build their own European Union army.

Brexit has proved Westminster, Washington and Moscow care nothing about civilians in the European Union.

... the brexit rip-off brigade... and their unelected global 'off-shore' banking empire that is hardly 'revolutionary'...

The remaining European Union has a constructive future as a trading bloc that is no bigger than some of the other larger countries like the U.S. and China etc.

The shameless Brexit bark by Westminster, Washington and Moscow over the imaginary EU ’superstate’ is exposed as the disinformation it is, when compared to other trading blocs, and in particular when you look at it's administrative core trying to unite so many countries under a banner of the rule of law.

The cesspit of Brexit Westminster:

... the small matter of a real lawsuit exposed what these fake peaceniks violently really did to real peaceniks...

The EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms is more important than the opinion mill of the revolving doors of any politics and journalism.

Would you really surrender your freedom to live in the peace and harmony of the rule of law to the control of the opinion mill of politics and journalism ?

Westminster’s state of denial will always be remembered as it’s ‘will of the people’ woo that didn't have a shred of respect for the peace and harmony of the rule of law that exists for the benefit of everyone.

A government who operate 24/7 with shelter, violently claim the public are not 'allowed' to

"to the critics, what would you stand up for, for so long ?"

Babs Tucker: "I learned everything I learned from Brian who was the real information superhighway, and our many years of real 24/7 experience campaigning on the front-line in Parliament Square, Central London, not from the divide and rule spin of the whole spectrum of MSM & alt 'news' media"

unlawfully arrested, never charged with anything

It was that original deliberate failure and cover up by Bindmans Solicitors & Garden Court Chambers 'lawyers' who failed to immediately go to the High Court with a jury lawsuit over my unlawful arrest on 23 May 2006 when I was released without charge that:

a) obviously left me seriously vulnerable thereafter (because they were then actually only trying to cover up what they had done too)

and

b) was why multi-billion dollar legislation a High Court jury would have ruled incompatible with the rule of law, way back in 2006 took so long to repeal.

[Babs was unlawfully arrested 48 times to try and cover up her 'void ab initio' win against the British Parliament & Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and his 30,000 thugs on 14 September 2006]

In 2008 Chez Cotton from Bindmans was threatening Brian if I went to the High Court and then in February 2010 Mike Schwarz from Bindmans was ordering barristers to withdraw from representing me, threatening they would lose any business from Bindmans if they didn't etc etc etc etc

'Sir' Kier Starmer, [the Head of Doughty Chambers] was made Director of Public Prosecutions & a Labour MP to cover up what he had done.

9 July 2006

unlawfully arrested, never charged with anything

In the revolving doors between the veneer of 'politicians' and 'journalists' hides they are all violent uncivilized corporate 'lobbyists'.

_____________________

U.K. POLICE STATE

10 April

1933, 1998,

2008 & 2013.

The violent attack and unlawful arrest of Brian below [and also Steve when we managed to break through police lines to try and rescue Brian] by TSG riot police happened after my massive win at Southwark Crown Court on 13 December 2007.

One of the immediate consequences of that win was the food chain at Charing Cross Police Station had to be disbanded from the top, down. The reality is arbitrary political policing just involves outright corruption with money changing hands.

[When I had won in court on 9 July 2007 in a case connected to the case that we then also won in December 2007 all hell had broken loose when we walked outside the court straight into a police ambush and four of us were unlawfully arrested, and I was tortured again and obviously none of us were ever charged with anything]

10 April 2008: This is the case [below] that originally signposted overt collusion between Labour & Tory under the cover of the London Mayoralty election, before they escalated to starting their MI5 'Democracy Village' under the cover of 2010 general election.

Labour and Tory hide 8 March 2007 emails while always refusing to comply with High Court Order, to explain how anyone could be imprisoned without legal representation or trial over the false pretext of an alleged 'S5 Public Order' which is not imprisonable [Vitol Oil and politicians bunged brown envelopes to public officials]

10 April 2013: City of London: MET Police & City of London 'secret' Police ambush over our going to High Court

Clear evidence of British Parliament illegally trying to obstruct lawsuits.

hitler loses to hindenburg 10 april 1933

blair signs good friday agreement on 10 april 1998 to wage war on terror,

invading iraq 2003

westminster loses 10 april 2008 case against us, with our getting high court order against them

31 January 2007: Tony Blair's armed personal 'Diplomatic' police & MET Police unlawfully arrest Babs to try and cover up their pushing her into the roadway.

I was kidnapped from court -during- live proceedings at Southwestern Magistrates Court on 19 July 2007, to stop me giving evidence in the malicious prosecution I subsequently won, involving Special Branch too, when the CPS were forced to concede "the state put in place a sequence of events that only put my life at risk".

"these are real people's lives we are talking about"

The Tories -Vitol Oil- with its annual 'turnover' of $270 billion stashed in Swiss vaults only slithered out of Moscow in March 2016, in the run up to Brexit

Blair's Genocide: "these are all people, flesh and blood like you and me"

... updated ...

Brian and Babs tapes of MET Police on 9 March 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London

7/7 Gold Commander goes after peaceniks !! 23 May 2006

23 May 2006: MET Police unlawfully arrest Babs knowing that, as proves to be the case, they can't find anything to charge her with.

5 August 2006

Unlawfully arrested and tortured. When I won the court case [above] on 9 July 2007, when it finally had to be admitted the police never had any evidence to arrest, bail me to Charing Cross Police Station and charge me on 4 September 2006, we walked out of the court into a police ambush where four of us were unlawfully arrested and I was tortured again [and obviously no-one was ever charged with anything]

November 2006

unlawfully arrested, never charged with anything

27 June 2007: Blair & Brown trade places

unlawfully arrested, never charged with anything

Bush visit June 2008

STATE OPENING: 18 NOVEMBER 2009

November 2009: MET Police trying to cover up "torture that was used to try and cause organ failure and death" on September 3 & 4th 2009 at Belgravia Police Station, when I was violently attacked, unlawfully arrested and never charged with anything. The MET Police have always illegally refused to hand over to me, the CCTV that does exist and was secured.

MET Police twist metal handcuffs over Babs broken bones in her hand from September 2009. The malicious prosecution was 'suddenly adjourned' on 29 April 2010 so their MI5 Democracy Village could start on 1 May 2010.

They were really our High Court jury lawsuits too, because they knew searches that only began in July 2008, where they never found anything were always illegal.

STATE OPENING: 25 May 2010

25 May 2010: a seriously, seriously corrupt MET police officer from the dirty tricks brown envelope dept. desperate to cover up his -latest- lying witness statement from November 2009

mega money changes hands

Babs unlawfully arrested on 25 May 2010, in undercover operation over lawfully 'blowing the whistle' in legal proceedings on 13 January 2010, over London torture spy ring.

The BBC & MET Police illegally edit and maliciously publish audio to hide the 'complainant' against me in my unlawful arrest on 25 May 2010 is MI5 Democracy Village !!

when my best friend was dying

'Low': The circle jerk of multiple layers of govt. 'departments' acting for all political parties, all having a go, often at the same time. There's no doubt Westminster Council and the MET Police et al collude in their racketeering.

N.B: Their 'covert' government run campaigns called Peacestrike & Democracy Village also came legally unstuck incl. because they were really the one and same, run by the same people, who were publicly -lying- about 'complying' with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that while being used against our Parliament Square Peace Campaign, was not ever used against their Democracy Village who built a tent -city- in Parliament Square !!

The 'covert' government operation used undercovers to unlawfully arrest Brian and Babs on a number of occasions including 25 May 2010.

26 February 2011

August - September 2011: illegally imprisoned without legal representation or trial after Brian dies...

31 August 2011

The British Parliament knew they had lost our 17 August 2011 High Court jury lawsuit, when they waded in to steal whatever they could lay their hands on, in an act of revenge on 31 August 2011, and then later on 16 January 2012.

On 16 January 2012, the MET Police just stole our shelter while not taking us to court, while leaving their MI5 Democracy Village with shelter. No-one could produce the supposed injunction protecting MI5 Democracy Village because it didn't exist until 7 February 2012, AFTER I started asking questions in the High Court, who confirmed no injunction existed.

Our 17 August 2011 High Court jury lawsuit THEN illegally had a 'stay' put on it in March 2012, while MI5 Democracy Village argued an extraneous Judicial Review until 4 May 2012, that had nothing whatsoever to do with us.

It is self evident that everything the British Parliament of all political shades and their 'departments' had ever done to us was an obvious wilful obstruction of the administration of justice, that after 17 August 2011 they did all then know, was in Contempt of our High Court jury lawsuit.

8 December 2012

you learn something every day

to be honest, never thought of using a big leaf

april 2008

24/10/2017: Sorry website has been offline the past week. We were hacked by Government Agents !!